green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
31.7 score
“he mere appearance of bias or partiality is not enough to set aside an arbitration award.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Grupo Unidos Por El del Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he mere appearance of bias or partiality is not enough to set aside an arbitration award.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Armont v. K12 (Florida Cyber Charter Academy--FLCCA)
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Servs., 146 F.3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir. 1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenda Perez v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company
The alleged partiality must be “direct, definite and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain and speculative.” Id. at 1202 . “[T]he mere appearance of bias or 6 USCA11 Case: 20-12730 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 7 of 9 partiality is not enough to set aside an arbitration award.” Lifecare Int’l, 68 F.3d at 433.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose A. Torres v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC
(2×)
Id. at 435.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendel v. Morgan Keegan & Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 433-34 (11th Cir. 1995); Gianelli, 146 F.3d at 1312 , According to our precedent, “the mere appearance of bias or partiality is not enough to set aside an arbitration award.” Lifecare Int’l, Inc., 68 F.3d at 433.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Municipal Workers Compensation Fund, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 (11th Cir.1995), the arbitrator accused of ‘evident partiality’ became ‘of counsel’ to a law firm that had two' contacts with CD Medical, including one ‘for the purpose of obtaining representation in the instant dispute.’ Id. at 434.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wiregrass Metal Trades Council v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES Judicial review of an arbitration award is “narrowly limited,” Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995) (citing Davis v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 59 F.3d 1186 , 1190 (11th Cir.1995)), and “necessarily quite constricted.” Butterkrust Bakeries v. Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 361, 726 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir.1984) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kathy Fowler v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC
(2×)
But, we have previously held that “the mere appearance of bias or partiality is not enough to set aside an arbitration award.” Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Communications Services, Inc. v. Thomas
The Court must give the arbitrator’s decision great deference. 4 See Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995) (“[F]ederal courts should defer to the arbitrator’s resolution of the dispute whenever possible.”) (internal quotes and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amoco D.T. Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
This is one area of the law which is highly dependent on the unique factual settings of each particular case.” Bossley, 79 S.W.3d at 34 (quoting Lifecare Int'l Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 435 (11th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
US for Use and Ben. of Wfi Georgia v. Gray Ins.
Review of an arbitration award is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and review is "narrowly limited." Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995). "[T]he FAA presumes that arbitration awards will be confirmed, [and] consequently, federal courts should defer to the arbitrator's resolution of the dispute whenever possible." Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gray Insurance
Review of an arbitration award is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and review is “narrowly limited.” Lifecare Intern,., Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995). “[T]he FAA presumes that arbitration awards will be confirmed, [and] consequently, federal courts should defer to the arbitrator’s resolution of the dispute whenever possible.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rueter v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
A party contesting an arbitration award faces a “difficult standard” to overcome as an arbitration award “is presumptively correct.” Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 435 (11th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
RDC Golf of Florida I, Inc. v. Apostolicas
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
RDC argues that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, erroneously relying on Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 432 (11th Cir.1995), which held that the "mere appearance of bias or partiality is not enough to set aside an arbitration award." RDC contends that the standard established in Lifecare conflicts with the more recent Eleventh Circuit case of University Commons-Urbana Ltd. v. Universal Constructors, Inc., 304 F.3d 1331 , 1339 (11th Cir.2002), as well as Florida law set forth in Weinger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 620 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shields & Co. v. Bright
The Court may vacate an arbitration award that is arbitrary and capricious only if “a ground for the arbitrator’s decision cannot be inferred from the facts of the case.” Lifecare Intl. v. CD Medical, 68 F.3d 429, 434 (11th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
University Commons-Urbana, Ltd. v. Universal Constructors Inc.
(3×)
As we have noted in our previous cases, an arbitrator is obligated to disclose those facts that “create a reasonable impression of partiality,” Lifecare Int’l, 68 F.3d at 433 (citation omitted), or put another way, “information which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a potential conflict exists.” Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust, 146 F.3d at 1312 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
University Commons-Urbana, Ltd., Capstone Development Corp., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Universal Constructors Inc., Reliance Insurance Company, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. Universal Constructors Inc., Reliance Insurance Company v. University Commons-Urbana Capstone Development Corp., Its General Partner
(2×)
That is, "an arbitration award may be vacated due to the `evident partiality' of an arbitrator only when either (1) an actual conflict exists, or (2) the arbitrator knows of, but fails to disclose, information which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a potential conflict exists." Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 146 F.3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir.1998) (citing Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995) and Middlesex Mut.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Marie Anderson v. H & R Block
(3×)
As we have noted in our previous cases, an arbitrator is obligated to disclose those facts that “create a reasonable impression of partiality,” Lifecare Int’l, 68 F.3d at 433 (citation omitted), or put another way, “information which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a potential conflict exists.” Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust, 146 F.3d at 1312 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mariner Financial Group, Inc. v. Bossley
(2×)
Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 435 (11th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rosati v. Bekhor
In order to find that there was evident partiality, “The alleged partiality must be direct, definite, and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain and speculative.” Life *1346 care International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
On the other hand, cases where courts have rejected arguments seeking to overturn arbitration awards based on evident partiality include Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 435 (11th Cir.1995), and Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Services, 146 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.1998).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 (11th Cir.1995), the arbitrator accused of “evident partiality” became “of counsel” to a law firm that had two contacts, with CD Medical, including one “for the purpose of obtaining representation in the instant dispute.” Id. at 434.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gianelli Money v. ADM Investor
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 (11th Cir. 1995), the arbitrator accused of “evident partiality” became “of counsel” to a law firm that had two contacts with CD Medical, including one “for the purpose of obtaining representation in the instant dispute.” Id. at 434.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nautica International, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P.
Lifecare International Incorporated v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 436 (11th Cir.1995). (applying Florida law) (citations omitted), mod. on other grounds, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Lambros
A. Standard of Review This Court’s review of an arbitration award is controlled by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 , et seq. (the “FAA”). *1341 “[I]t is well settled that judicial review of an arbitration award is narrowly limited.” Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting Davis v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 59 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir.1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burlington Northern Railroad v. TUCO Inc.
See also Woods v. Saturn Distribution Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir.1996); Lifecare Int'l Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 433 (11th Cir.1995); Barcon Assoc. v. Tri-County Asphalt Corp., 86 N.J. 179 , 430 A.2d 214, 219-20 (1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tower Oak, Inc. v. Selmonosky (In Re Selmonosky)
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Lifecare, 68 F.3d at 435; Celotex, 196 B.R. at 607 . 5 The actual determination of the pre-clusive effect of factual findings supporting an arbitration award must occur on a case-by-case basis centered on an evaluation of certain criteria designed to protect the federal interest in the federal proceeding.
cited
Cited "see"
RHC Operating LLC v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO
See Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 435 (11th Cir. 1995), modified and supplemented, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
White Construction Co. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
See Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 436 (11th Cir.1995) (“Simply because the parties contemplated the drafting of a subsequent formal, written contract, does not denote that they did not intend to be bound immediately by their oral or written negotiations.”); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 564 F.Supp. 1131, 1145 (S.D.Fla.1983) (“If parties so intend, a contract is binding from the time it is made even though the parties also agree that a formal writing embodying its provisions will subsequently be prepared.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Brabham v. A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.
See Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 435 (11th Cir.1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Brabham v. A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.
See Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429, 435 (11th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Waverlee Homes, Inc. v. McMichael
Coal , 48 F.3d at 129 ; Health Services Management Corp. , 975 F.2d at 1264 ; Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz , 750 F.2d 171 , 173 (2nd Cir. 1984); see Schmitz , 20 F.3d at 1046-47 (rejecting `appearance of bias' standard)." 68 F.3d at 433 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Lummus Global Amazonas, S.A. v. Aguaytia Energy Del Peru, S.R. Ltda.
See Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 146 F.3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir.1998)(citing Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 (11th Cir.1995)); Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A., 85 F.3d 680, 682 (D.C.Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Venus Lines Agency, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Cvg International America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
See Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 436 (11th Cir.1995), modified and supplemented on other grounds, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Venus Lines Agency, Inc. v. CVG International Amer
See Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 436 (11th Cir.1995), modified and supplemented on other grounds, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Venus Lines Agency, Inc. v. CVG International Amer
See Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 436 (11th Cir. 1995), modified and supplemented on other grounds, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Scott v. Prudential Securities
See Lifecare Int'l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 433 (11th Cir. 1995), modified on other grounds, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers
(2×)
See Lifecare Intern., Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 (11th Cir.1995), opinion modified, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir.1996) (citing Davis v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 59 F.3d 1186 , 1188 (11th Cir.1995)) 4 The four statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration decision are: (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and ma…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama
Gianelli, 146 F.3d at 1312–13; see also Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 4333–35 (11th Cir. 1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Capital Factors, Inc. v. Alba Rent-A-Car, Inc.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., 376 F.3d 377, 380-81 (5th Cir.2004); see also Lifecare Int’l, 68 F.3d at 435. .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wages v. Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co.
Co. v. Statheros Shipping Corp. of Monrovia, Liberia, 761 F.Supp. 293, 298 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 948 F.2d 1277 (2d Cir.1991) (citing Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., 579 F.2d 691, 700 (2d Cir.1978); see also Lifecare Int’l, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc., 68 F.3d 429 , 435 (11th Cir.1995), modified, 85 F.3d 519 (11th Cir.1996)) (“This is one area of the law which is highly dependent on the unique factual settings of each particular case.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lifecare Intl.
v.
CD Medical, Inc.
v.
CD Medical, Inc.
94-4595.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Nov 7, 1995.
68 F.3d 429
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. Florida (1)
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
No. 94-4595. LIFECARE INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CD MEDICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, C.D. Medical, B.V., a Dutch corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
May 31, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 90-283-CIV-FAM), Federico A. Moreno, Judge.
Prior report: 11th Cir., 68 F.3d 429. Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, HILL, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLS*, District Judge.
BY THE COURT:
The motion to recall the mandate filed by Movant Craig Edward Stein is GRANTED.
We modify and supplement our opinion in this case with this observation:
The statements by the Court in discussing the issues raised in this appeal concerning alleged bias on the part of Mr. Stein are based upon the record created by the parties to this case. As a nonparty, Mr. Stein was not entitled to present evidence or otherwise to respond to the allegations. Thus, the statements in the opinion should not be interpreted to represent conclusions of the Court about the actual conduct of Mr. Stein.
* Honorable Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.